The role of co-products in biorefinery sustainability: energy allocation versus substitution method in rapeseed and carinata biodiesel chains.

Abstract The paper analyzes biodiesel chains of rapeseed (Brassica napus) and carinata (Brassica carinata) cultivated in Central and Southern Italy, assessing the impact on Global Warming Potential by means of the Life Cycle Assessment methodology. The production chains differed in use of the oilcake, as animal feed for rapeseed and as biofumigant for B. carinata. The allocation of emissions across co-products was first calculated on the basis of their energy content according to the criterion proposed by European Commission for biofuel production. The resulting impacts were then compared to those obtained through the substitution approach (system expansion method), which considers emissions that are saved by replacing the equivalent conventional product with co-product bio-based materials i.e. soybean meals, nematicidal fumigants, fertilizers and glycerol. The results showed that this method is sensitive to pointing out the importance of the valorization of co-products to the sustainability of bioenergy supply chain. Among the different options taken into consideration, in the case of the B. carinata biodiesel chain, the substitution of conventional fumigants and fertilizers with biofumigants and amendments is able to determine a global net saving of 134 g CO2eq per MJ of biodiesel, reversing the sustainability assessment obtained through the energy allocation method. Overall, the results suggest that, when planning future biorefineries, environmental assessment should take the substitution approach into account in order for valorization of co-products and diversification of processes to be rewarded.

[1]  L. Lazzeri,et al.  A new biobased liquid formulation with biofumigant and fertilising properties for drip irrigation distribution , 2013 .

[2]  L. Lazzeri,et al.  In Vitro Fungitoxic Activity of Some Glucosinolates and Their Enzyme-Derived Products toward Plant Pathogenic Fungi , 1997 .

[3]  Luca Lazzeri,et al.  Bio-based Products from Brassica Carinata A. Braun Oil and Defatted Meal by a Second Generation Biorefinery Approach , 2011 .

[4]  M. Tripathi,et al.  GLICOSINOLATES IN ANIMAL NUTRITION: A REVIEW , 2007 .

[5]  M. Tremblay,et al.  Biological Stability of Carbon and Nitrogen in Organic Products and Crop Residues using Fourier-Transform Near-Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy , 2010 .

[6]  H. Blonk,et al.  Methodology used in FeedPrint: a tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization , 2013 .

[7]  Wim Turkenburg,et al.  Large-scale bioenergy production from soybeans and switchgrass in Argentina: Part B. Environmental and socio-economic impacts on a regional level , 2009 .

[8]  Anna Ekman,et al.  Bioresource utilisation by sustainable technologies in new value-added biorefinery concepts - two case studies from food and forest industry , 2013 .

[9]  Luca Lazzeri,et al.  Sustainability of sunflower cultivation for biodiesel production in Tuscany within the EU Renewable Energy Directive , 2012 .

[10]  John J. Reap,et al.  A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment , 2008 .

[11]  Fabio Menten,et al.  A review of LCA greenhouse gas emissions results for advanced biofuels: The use of meta-regression analysis , 2013 .

[12]  O. Leoni,et al.  Effects of glucosinolates and their enzymatic hydrolysis products via myrosinase on the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita (Kofoid et White) Chitw. , 2004, Journal of agricultural and food chemistry.

[13]  Cinzia Buratti,et al.  A comparison of the European renewable energy directive default emission values with actual values from operating biodiesel facilities for sunflower, rape and soya oil seeds in Italy , 2012 .

[14]  Adisa Azapagic,et al.  Allocation of environmental burdens in co-product systems: Product-related burdens (Part 1) , 1999 .

[15]  B. Muys,et al.  Food and habitat preferences of the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris L. for cover crops , 2011 .

[16]  Raili Kajaste,et al.  Chemicals from biomass - managing greenhouse gas emissions in biorefinery production chains - a review. , 2014 .

[17]  Scott Duncan,et al.  A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment , 2008 .

[18]  Nicolae Scarlat,et al.  Recent developments of biofuels/bioenergy sustainability certification: A global overview , 2011 .

[19]  N. Halberg,et al.  LCA of soybean meal , 2008 .

[20]  Serenella Sala,et al.  Current options for the valorization of food manufacturing waste: a review , 2014 .

[21]  Gabriella Fiorentino,et al.  Cropping bioenergy and biomaterials in marginal land: The added value of the biorefinery concept , 2011 .

[22]  David Chiaramonti,et al.  Is life cycle assessment (LCA) a suitable method for quantitative CO2 saving estimations? the impact of field input on the LCA results for a pure vegetable oil chain , 2010 .

[23]  Göran Finnveden,et al.  Allocation in ISO 14041—a critical review , 2001 .

[24]  J Villegas,et al.  Life cycle assessment of biofuels: energy and greenhouse gas balances. , 2009, Bioresource technology.